africa

The ASB Partnership for the Tropical
Forest Margins held its inaugural 20th Anniversary celebration in
New Delhi, India on Thursday, February 13 2014 as a special event during the World
Congress on Agroforestry.

In his opening statement, Prof Tony
SimonA panel of ASB Partners and scientists who have worked with the Partnership over the 20 year period give their reflectionss, the ASB Partnership Chair and Director General at the World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF) noted that, “There is no other single partnership agency that
has stayed the cause in working with all of those issues at the agriculture
–forestry interface in the tropical forest margins.”

In attendance at the celebrations were ASB
partners, some who have been working with the partnership since its inception
in 1994 and were part of even earlier discussions leading to its formation. These
included: Dr Dennis Garrity, Senior Board Fellow at ICRAF and former ASB Chair;
Dr Tatiana Sá, former Executive Director, Embrapa and now a senior researcher
with the same institution; Prof Fahmudin Angus of the Indonesian Soil Research
Institute (ISRI); Dr Vu Tan Phuong, the ASB Partnership national facilitator in
Vietnam; Dr Jofel Feliciano, ASB national facilitator in the Philippines,
working with The Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural
Resources Research and Development.

Dr Peter Minang, the current ASB Partnership
Global Coordinator indulged them in a panel discussion on their work and
reflections with the partnership over the years.

They acknowledged ASB’s impact over the
years in shaping policies and debates both at national and international
levels, training of farmers and government officials at local level and
producing high impact scientific publications, manuals and other resources that
have widely been used by decision makers. But they also mentioned some of the
challenges and work areas within the Partnership’s mandate that still need to
be tackled. “There still remains a need to explore options for sustainable
agriculture among the poor farmers practicing shifting cultivation in the Congo
basin,” said Dr Dennis Garrity. New Book: Partnership in the tropical forest margins: a 20-year Journey in Search of Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn released at the inaugural ASB 20th anniversary celebrations

The celebrations concluded with a virtual
tour of the ASB benchmark sites in form of a poster session and an art gallery
that illustrated various activities on shifting cultivation as practiced in
Southeast Asia.

At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, two
recommendations made under agenda 21 to combat deforestation are of
significance to the genesis of the ASB Partnership.

Here, the
global community agreed to develop policies and gather efforts that would
support actions to:

“Limit and
aim to halt destructive shifting cultivation by addressing the underlying
social and ecological causes ”.

“Reduce
damage to forests by promoting sustainable management of areas adjacent to the
forests”.

This international policy framework gave
impetus to an ongoing process within the then Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) of initiating a system-wide
programme on Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn (ASB) agriculture, an idea forged
at the 1990 CGIAR International Science Week.

The idea developed and process continued
through 1991-1993 and involved workshop discussions on feasibility of a “global,
coordinated effort on ASB agriculture in tropical rainforest areas.” This was
followed by discussion papers on methodological guidelines on site
characterization used to determine and identify appropriate locations for the
ASB benchmark sites. Initial donor support for this groundwork was through
UNDP.

ASB was formally endorsed as one of the first
system-wide programmes of the CGIAR in March 1994 and Phase 1 of the
alternative to slash and burn project commenced. The programme was governed by
a Global Steering Group comprised of representatives from twelve (12)
international research institutes mainly from the CGIAR. Beyond the governance
group, ASB comprised of 40 other partners spread across the tropical humid
belt. Phase I of the programme was implemented through four thematic groups
with support from GEF.

The book Slash
and Burn Agriculture: Search for Alternatives covers the first decade of ASB work and
explains that the programmeThe ASB Global Coordination Office staff together with the Global Steering Group, the main policy and decision-making body whose primary role is to provide overall governance and guidance to the ASB Partnershipprovided “rigorous science, new conceptual and
empirical tools, and thoughtful policy analysis” that contributed to “identifying more sustainable
land use practices and enabling policies that help conserve environmental
functions of the tropical forest margins while increasing household income and
food security for millions of poor people.”

Among key successes in the early
years of the program include a research framework that established the basis
for integrated natural resource management research of the CGIAR centers, the
ASB matrix and tradeoff analysis that was taken up in government programs as a
way to tackle complex problems and reconcile the interests of different
stakeholders (see ASB Policy Brief 05). In addition, the program spearheaded the
Tropical Forest Margins sub-global assessment (SGA), the first crosscutting SGA
in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).

“ASB has also shown how the
disciplinary strengths in climate change, biodiversity, agronomy, policy
reform, and adoption can be used in a balanced and positive way, with combined,
mutually accepted standard methods.”

To celebrate its achievements, ASB received
the CGIAR Science Award for Outstanding Partnership for its contribution towards
“developing more environment-friendly farming techniques and slowing
deforestation.”

Alternatives
to Slash and Burn evolves into ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins

Since 2008, the program has
rebranded from Alternatives to Slash-and –Burn to ASB Partnership for the
Tropical Forest Margins and is no longer a system wide program of the CGIAR.

It is a global partnership that
includes non-CGIAR partners such as National Agricultural Research Institutes
and International Research Institutes with work both in and outside the CGIAR
system. However, ASB still aligns its
research to contribute to and partners strongly with CGIAR institutions.

The scope of work and research
mandate has also widened from reducing the threat of slash-and-burn farming
systems to the world’s humid tropical forests and exploring viable and
profitable land use alternatives for smallholder farmers to reducing emissions
from land use change, including forestry, agriculture, while ensuring viable
livelihoods and enhancing social and environmental co-benefits.

About 1000 publications have been
produced under the auspices of ASB to date. This includes 300 refereed journal
articles, 25 books, 100 book chapters and more than 50 policy briefs. In 2005,
the External Programme review panel for ASB found that ASB publications have
been well cited by specialists and relevant policy documents globally (Clarke
et al 2005). Table 1.1 highlights key ASB publications.

Tools, methodologies, guidelines
and resources that have seen the most number of downloads from the website and
have been used to train relevant stakeholders including national government
officials to date include:

The Rio+20 meetings started a process for
the world to articulate the future we want through a set of Sustainable
Development Goals. Landscapes with forests, trees and agroforestry will be
central to achieving many of these goals. As part of its annual Science Week,
the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is
staging the Nairobi Landscape Day
at its headquarters on Friday 13 September 2013.

The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been working at the landscape level for many years and has accumulated a depth of knowledge and expertise in the approachLandscapes combine 1) people and their ambitions and
livelihoods, 2) land use systems with and without trees, 3) patterns of tree
cover in space and time, interacting with the topography, soils, climate, water
flows, flora and fauna, 4) ecosystem services, or the benefits humans derive from
functioning (agro)ecosystems, 5) stakeholders who care about what happens with
the services and the underlying natural and social capital, 6) governance
mechanisms by which stakeholders can influence, in positive or negative ways,
what people do. This completes the circle, or logical loop, leading to overall
degradation (in many of our landscapes), restoration or gradual improvement.
The future earth we want will have zero (net) degradation, as one of the
proposed sustainable development goals articulates. A large new scientific
effort coordinated by all academies of science in the world is now zooming in
on this FuturEarth concept.

The World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been working at the landscape level for many
years and has accumulated a depth of knowledge and expertise in the approach.
Nairobi Landscape Day will have four events: an eye-opening lecture on future earth, sustainable development goal,
agroforestry and experience with landscape approaches so far; a virtual
fieldtrip around the world, visiting live examples of how people and
landscapes interact across the 6
aspects; an open house, where we show
our various approaches to landscapes; a discussion panel on the demand for and
supply of scientific analysis to support these feedback loops.

ICRAF scientists
Cheikh Mbow, Sara Namirembe and Peter Minang will talk about “Agroforestry
Landscapes, Sustainable Development Goals and the Future Earth We Want.”

In 2015 world
leaders will take stock of the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) and will see evidence that concrete targets that have the support of the
global policy community can actually help in reducing poverty. However, the MDG
on sustainable development will have little progress to show. In anticipation
of this discussion, a UN-lead process has started to come up with a set of
Sustainable Development Goals that build on the MDGs but give more operational
clarity on the environmental side. Current drafts of the goals suggest that
agroforestry can be relevant in meeting many of these SDGs. The lecture will
introduce the Future Earth initiative, give an update on the development of the
SDGs and start a discussion how agroforestry at large and ICRAF specifically
can best participate.

After the
lecture, participants will be taken on a virtual tour of the landscapes in
Asia, Africa and Latin America where ICRAF works on integrated approaches.
Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, we have become increasingly aware of
the wide range of ecosystem services derived from landscapes. These include
things like clean water, flood, droughts and soil erosion control, land and
biodiversity conservation, in addition to agricultural and forest production.
This session will answer the questions: Who is involved in farming, cutting and
planting trees? What benefits do farmers get from trees, agroforestry practices
and agroforestry land use? Which trees are where in the landscape? How do trees
contribute to ecosystem services? Who cares and is a stakeholder of positive or
negative change in landscape performance? How can stakeholders influence and
have average on the drivers of change to which farmers respond?

A key feature of
the landscape approach is that it integrates land and soil , agriculture,
forests, trees, people, animals and water rather than treating them
separately. The landscape approach
embraces these various landscape functions and seeks to manage land at the
range of scales necessary to ensure sustainable development. After the tour, a
summary will be given of the tools and approaches that have been developed
during Science Week for integrated approaches, welcoming partners to share
their work related to the landscape.

Adopting a
landscape approach will have a range of impacts, such as preserving forests,
raising the number of useful trees in the landscape, increasing agricultural
production and food security, restoring degraded land and halting further land
degradation and desertification, conserving biodiversity, contributing to
poverty eradication, mitigating the effects of climate change and promoting a
greener economy. The mix of these outcomes will vary according to context and
local needs and aspirations.

As an essential
part of the Day’s activities, there will be a panel discussion on the demand
for scientific agroforestry knowledge for sustainable development goals, and
the supply of such knowledge by the CGIAR and Future Earth academic science,
chaired by ICRAF Deputy Director General, Research, Dr. Ravi Prabhu.

This should
highlight ways to meet development challenges that do not jeopardize how future
generations will be able to derive benefits from the products and services of
the landscapes that support us today.

Markets can only be a part of the solution to reversing
unacceptable levels of deforestation and forest degradation, according to
research from the World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). “Looking at the whole system and all available
options remains the only guarantee, and this means taking a landscape
perspective,” according to Dr Ravi Prabhu, Director of Research at ICRAF, who
was speaking at a side event of Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn on June 5th 2013.Dr Ravi Prabhu (left), Director of Research at ICRAF, with other panelists at a side event of Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn on June 5th 2013

Dr Ravi defined a landscape as a mosaic of agriculture,
forests, plantations with competitions, trade-offs and synergies between land uses. At this level, there are also multiple sectors, stakeholders and
practices. Given that the system is so dynamic, he pointed to multifunctional co-investment
mechanisms as necessary means of embracing local people, private and public sectors,
PES bundling and stacking as options.

In other words, success was more likely if the needs and
interests of all the actors who mattered were taken into account and a
framework was set up to allow them to jointly invest finances, time and
resources in the landscape in order to derive the values they were looking for.
Although this would involve compromises and negotiation, a more diverse and
therefore resilient system was likely to result.

The event, hosted by the Global Forest Coalition (GFC), focused
discussions on a report on non-market based approaches to reducing
deforestation and forest degradation submitted to SBSTA by GFC.

According to the report, indigenous communities have always
preserved and protected their forests not just for the economic value they
derive from them but also for important cultural and spiritual functions. According
to the report, there is evidence to show that areas protected by communities
are more likely to survive deforestation and negative environment extractions
as opposed to areas protected through other means of control such as government
bans. As such, empowering communities to manage their forests remains the best
option from efforts to protect the ecosystem while promoting livelihoods. But how?

Debates and negotiations have centered on market approaches
such as Payment for Environmental Services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation (REDD+). Essentially these approaches are based on a
financial compensation to forest users for the opportunity costs of more ‘destructive’
land-use forms based on a market price for the goods in question, e.g. water or
tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Simone Lovera, Executive Director of Global Forest Coalition warns that
approaches based on such market mechanisms should be approached with caution as
they could present a higher risk to communities particularly with regard to
efficiency and equity. Besides, she argues, political and financial commitments
do not match these policy frameworks. “For instance, so far, the carbon market
has only realized less than 1% of the anticipated REDD+ funding. Financial
constraints therefore bring in the issue of who receives funding, who is going
to be paid for what and more often than not it is not the individual households
that benefit,” said Simone while speaking at the UNFCCC side event.

She noted that there is need to pay attention to non-market
based approaches that ensure recognition and territorial rights of the
indigenous people and local communities. These should empower communities by
also promoting local knowledge and information systems as well as policies for
legal and financial support on land reforms, sustainable agriculture and that
discourage destructive activities like logging. “Such means of empowering communities
to protect their environment ensures sustainability as they do not rely on
unpredictable and uncertain funding flows,” said Simone.

A landscape approach takes into account needs and interests of all the actors who matter especially local communitiesPresenting evidence from ICRAF’s work on environmental
services, Dr Ravi used results from research sites in Southeast Asia and Africa to explain some of the PES
related challenges especially on issues to do with equity and efficiency (see
presentation on Slideshare). He emphasized the need for a comprehensive
systematic approach, one that can leverage on best options available from
various approaches and deliver on securing livelihoods for communities and
ecosystem services. “Looking at the whole system is the only guarantee, and
this means having a landscape perspective,” explained Ravi. He emphasized that
a market price or opportunity costs based approach generally underestimated the
full value of the forests, focused as they were on a particular good or
service.

He concluded with the message that agroforestry systems can deliver both market and non-market
benefits in ways that empower local communities to ensure sustainability.

Ahead of tomorrow`s Forest
Day 6 discussion forum on drivers of deforestation hosted by the World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Dr Peter Minang’, a Senior Scientist and Global
Coordinator of the ASB Partnership said
that causes of deforestation are unique to regions and that there is no ‘one
size fits all’ approach to ending the problem. “For instance, in Latin America, forests are lost due to establishment
of cattle ranches while in Africa, smallholder farmers continue to engage in shifting
cultivation. There is also a widespread trend to establish vast industrial
plantations for oil palms in Asia and in other parts of the world,” Peter
explained with caution that history is a poor predictor of future drivers of
deforestation.

Done right, REDD+ can bring some attractive benefits to developing
countries, including finances that can be applied to various areas of
development.

According to Dr. Cheikh Mbow, however, poorly implemented REDD+
initiatives could negatively impact the livelihoods of the very
communities it was designed to benefit, particularly rural people who
depend on forest resources. Mbow is a senior climate change scientist
with the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and lead author of the recent
new report titled ‘Challenges and Prospects for REDD+ in Africa: Desk
Review Of REDD+ Implementation in Africa.” The report sought to
synthesize the ever-growing number of REDD+ activities under
implementation in Africa, including the actors, objectives, means of
execution, and outcomes.

“Within the African context, a range of deforestation pressures,
financial resources, technical capacity and a diverse array of interest
groups present challenges to REDD+ implementation,” he adds. Read more